Full text of "Immigration: The Reserve Army of Capital"

See other formats

Immigration: The Reserve Army of Capital 

Alain de Benoist 

(Translated from the French by Tom Sunic ) 

In 1973, shortly before his death, the French President Georges Pompidou admitted 
to have opened the floodgates of immigration, at a request of a number of big 
businessmen, such as Francis Bouygues, who was eager to take advantage of docile 
and cheap labor devoid of class consciousness and of any tradition of social struggle. 
This move was meant to exert downward pressure on the wages of French workers, 
reduce their protesting zeal, and in addition, break up the unity of the labor 
movement. Big bosses, he said, "always want more." 

Forty years later nothing has changed. At a time when no political party would dare to 
ask for further acceleration of the pace of immigration, only big employers seem to be 
in favor of it — simply because it is in their interest. The only difference is that the 
affected economic sectors are now more numerous, going beyond the industrial 
sector and the hotel and catering service sector — now to include once "protected" 
professions, such as engineers and computer scientists. 

France, as we know, starting with the 19 th century, massively reached out to foreign 
immigrants. The immigrating population was already 800,000 in 1876, only to reach 
1 .2 million in 1911. French industry was the prime center of attraction for Italian and 
Belgian immigrants, followed by Polish, Spanish and Portuguese immigrants. "Such 
immigration, unskilled and non-unionized, allowed employers to evade increasing 
requirements pertaining to the labor law" (Francois-Laurent Balssa, « Un choix 
salarial pour les grandes entreprises » Le Spectacle du monde, Octobre, 2010). 



In 1924, at the initiative of the Committee for Coalmining and big farmers from the 
Northeast of France, a "general agency for immigration" (Societe generate 
d'immigration) was founded. It opened up employment bureaus in Europe, which 
operated as suction pumps. In 1931 there were 2.7 million foreigners in France, that 
is, 6.6 % of the total population. At that time France displayed the highest level of 
immigration in the world (515 persons on 100,000 inhabitants). "This was a handy 
way for a large number of big employers to exert downward pressure on wages. ... 
From then on capitalism entered the competition of the workforce by reaching out to 
the reserve armies of wage earners." 

In the aftermath of World War II, immigrants began to arrive more and more 
frequently from Maghreb countries; first from Algeria, then from Morocco. Trucks 
chartered by large companies (especially in the automobile and construction 
industry) came by the hundreds to recruit immigrants on the spot. From 1962 to 
1974, nearly two million additional immigrants arrived to France of whom 550,000 
were recruited by the National Immigration Service (ONI), a state-run agency, yet 
controlled under the table by big business. Since then, the wave has continued to 
grow. Frangois-Laurent Balssa notes that 



when a workforce shortage in one sector occurs, out of the two possible 
choices one must either raise the salary, or one must reach out to foreign 
labor. Usually it was the latter option that was favored by the National Council 
of French Employers (CNPF) and as of 1998 by its successor, the Movement 
of Enterprises (MEDEF). That choice, which bears witness of the desire for 
short-term benefits, delayed advancement of production tools and industrial 
innovation. During the same period, however, as the example of Japan 
demonstrates, the rejection of foreign immigration and favoring of the domestic 
workforce enabled Japan to achieve its technological revolution, well ahead of 
most of its Western competitors. 

Big Business and the Left; A Holy Alliance 

At the beginning, immigration was a phenomenon linked to big business. It still 
continues to be that way. Those who clamor for always more immigration are big 
companies. This immigration is in accordance with the very spirit of capitalism, which 
aims at the erasure of borders (« laissez faire, laissez passer »). "While obeying the 
logic of social dumping, Balssa continues, a "low cost" labor market has thus been 
created with the "undocumented" and the "low-skilled," functioning as stopgap "jack 
of all trades." Thus, big business has reached its hand to the far-left, the former 
aiming at dismantling of the welfare state, considered to be too costly, the latter 
killing off the nation-state considered to be too archaic." This is the reason why the 
French Communist Part (PCF) and the French Trade Union (CGT) (which have 
radically changed since then) had, until 1981, battled against the liberal principle of 
open borders, in the name of the defense of the working class interests. 

For once a well-inspired Catholic liberal-conservative Philippe Nemo, only confirms 
these observations: 

In Europe there are people in charge of the economy who dream about 
bringing to Europe cheap labor. Firstly, to do jobs for which the local workforce 
is in short supply; secondly, to exert considerable downward pressure on the 
wages of other workers in Europe. These lobbies, which possess all 
necessary means to be listened to either by their governments or by the 
Commission in Brussels, are, generally speaking, both in favor of immigration 
and Europe's enlargement — which would considerably facilitate labor 
migrations. They are right from their point of view — a view of a purely 
economic logic [...] The problem, however, is that one cannot reason about 
this matter in economic terms only, given that the inflow of the extra-Europe 
population has also severe sociological consequences. If these capitalists pay 
little attention to this problem, it is perhaps because they enjoy, by and large, 
economic benefits from immigration without however themselves suffering 
from its social setbacks. With the money earned by their companies, whose 
profitability is ensured in this manner, they can reside in handsome 
neighborhoods, leaving their less fortunate compatriots to cope on their own 
with alien population in poor suburban areas. (Philippe Nemo, Le Temps d'y 
penser . 2010) 

According to official figures, immigrants living in regular households account for 5 
million people, which was 8% of the French population in 2008. Children of 



immigrants, who are direct descendants of one or two immigrants, represent 6.5 
million people, which is 1 1 % of the population. The number of illegals is estimated to 
be between 300,000 to 550,000. (Expulsion of illegal immigrants cost 232 million 
Euros annually, i.e., 12,000 euro per case). For his part, Jean-Paul Gourevitch, 
estimates the population of foreign origin living in France in 2009 at 7.7 people million 
(out of which 3.4 million are from the Maghreb and 2.4 million from sub-Saharan 
Africa), that is, 12.2% of the metropolitan population. In 2006, the immigrating 
population accounted for 17% of births in France. 

France is today experiencing migrant settlements, which is a direct consequence of 
the family reunification policy. However, more than ever before immigrants represent 
the reserve army of capital. 

In this sense it is amazing to observe how the networks on behalf of the 
"undocumented," run by the far-left (which seems to have discovered in immigrants 
its "substitute proletariat") serve the interests of big business. Criminal networks, 
smugglers of people and goods, big business, "human rights" activists, and under- 
the-table employers — all of them, by virtue of the global free market, have become 
cheerleaders for the abolition of frontiers. 

For example, it is a revealing fact that Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri in their books 
Empire and Multitude endorse "world citizenship " when they call for the removal of 
borders, which must have as a first goal in developed countries the accelerated 
settlement of the masses of low-wage Third World workers. The fact that most 
migrants today owe their displacement to outsourcing, brought about by the endless 
logic of the global market, and that their displacement is precisely something 
capitalism strives for in order to fit everybody into the market, and finally, that each 
territorial attachment could be a part of human motivations — does not bother these 
two authors at all. On the contrary, they note with satisfaction that "capital itself 
requires increased mobility of labor as well as continuous migration across national 
borders." The world market should constitute, from their point of view, a natural 
framework for "world citizenship." The market "requires a smooth space of uncoded 
and deterritorialized flux," destined to serve the interests of the "masses", because 
"mobility carries a price tag of capital, which means the enhanced desire for liberty." 

The trouble with such an apology of human displacement, seen as a first condition of 
"liberating nomadism," is that it relies on a completely unreal outlook of the specific 
situation of migrants and displaced people. As Jacques Guigou and Jacques 
Wajnsztejn write, "Hardt and Negri delude themselves with the capacity of the 
immigration flows, thought to be a source for new opportunities for capital valuation, 
as well as the basis for opportunity enhancement for the masses. Yet, migrations 
signify nothing else but a process of universal competition, whereas migrating has no 
more emancipating value than staying at home. A "nomadic" person is no more 
inclined to criticism or to revolt than a sedentary person." ( L'evanescence de la 
valeur . Une presentation critique du groupe Krisis, 2004). 

"As long as people keep abandoning their families, adds Robert Kurz, and look for 
work elsewhere, even at the risk of their own lives — only to be ultimately shredded 
by the treadmill of capitalism — they will be less the heralds of emancipation and 
more the self-congratulatory agents of the postmodern West. In fact, they only 



represent its miserable version." (Robert Kurz, « L'Empire et ses theoriciens », 
2003). 

Whoever criticizes capitalism, while approving immigration, whose working class is its 
first victim, had better shut up. Whoever criticizes immigration, while remaining silent 
about capitalism, should do the same. 



Alain de Benoist